From: Lundgren (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jun 27 2006 - 16:01:40 PDT
"never is the outside inside and never is the inside outside..."
I'd say that in this case the outside (DVD - or futhure formats) will break
through the inside (film) and that it already is so much part of some inside
(film) because the outside is so much a part of some inside that even a
description of the outside cannot completely relieve the outside of the
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pip Chodorov" <email suppressed>
To: <email suppressed>
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: labels
>I don't think it's that complicated.
> A film is a film and a DVD of a film is a DVD of a film.
> A video is a video and a DVD of a video is a DVD of a video.
> And a kinescope (on film) of a video is a film of a video, etc.
> A reproduction is a reproduction.
> Hope that's not too Gertrude Stein for you.
> We have no trouble calling musicians acoustic-guitar players or
> electric-guitar players, then there are those who go back and forth, then
> the occasional electric-guitar players who do a special "unplugged"
> performance, and then there are those who play electric guitars with no
> amplifiers while they're sitting on the toilet, acoustically. There is no
> confusion, and the world is quite happy with the words that we use. So why
> should "digital film" cause such an uproar? Obviously the person who says
> "digital film" is an oxy-moron.
> -Pip Chodorov
>>This is a very interesting discussion. :)
>>I think that the term "film" is far beyond the material context.
>>Otherwise we would have a really complex situation when a DVD-version (or
>>VHS, LD, HD...) of a film wouldn't be a film. Surely it _is_ only a
>>re-presentation (and a manipulated one, more or less depending on the
>>format), but that is what cinema has allways been (and there's allways a
>>certain degree of manipulation).
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "k. a.r." <email suppressed>
>>To: <email suppressed>
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:16 PM
>>>hey there. somewhere in the barrage of posts, somebody wrote about not
>>>just calling ourselves filmmakers anymore.
>>>I think, if you work in film, call yourself a filmmmaker.
>>>if you work in video, call yourself whatever you think applies, but DON'T
>>>call yourself a filmmaker.
>>>One of my co-workers described himself as a "Digital Cinematographer" ,
>>>and stated adamently that he was NOT a filmmaker because he didnt work
>>>Myself personally, I like to tell people I am an experimental
>>>(haha, but I really do tell people that......)
>>>Kristie Reinders, B.F.A.
>>>Director of Cinematography, Electric Visions
>>>Curator and Head Projectionist, Electric Mural Project
>>>The Mission, San Francisco, CA
>>>For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>>For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.